In what was billed as a major economic policy speech, Hillary Clinton took aim at what she termed “quarterly capitalism.” That is, the Wall Street culture of profiting off market bets as quickly as possible rather than encouraging long-term investments.

Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that “the system is out of balance” while acknowledging that “most CEOs are simply responding to very real pressures from shareholders and the market to turn in good quarterly numbers.” It is that skewed incentive to promote quick turnarounds that Clinton wants to reform, arguing that “real value comes from long-term growth and not short-term profits.”

Popular anger at Wall Street is still a potent force, even seven years after the banking crisis nearly crashed the markets. Just look at the continued success of tea party populism on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left.

But, of course, not everybody agrees with Clinton. Bloomberg View columnist Matt Levine called the speech “silly.” Economist Tyler Cowen said “the standard anti-publicly traded company tropes are not self-evidently true,” citing social science research. And Phillip Swagel of the University of Maryland questioned the Clinton proposals, calling them “symbolic.”

You can be sure that this won’t be the last you hear the phrase “quarterly capitalism” – so what is it?

The problem of quarterly capitalism

The term “quarterly capitalism” was first introduced into the modern lexicon by Dominic Barton, managing director of McKinsey & Company. Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Barton decried “the tyranny of short-termism” and said that “we can reform capitalism, or we can let capitalism be reformed for us, through political measures and the pressures of an angry public.”

The “quarterly” part comes from the quarterly earnings reports publicly-traded companies release throughout the year. These can have a substantial impact on share prices. Take two recent examples: Apple’s solid numbers fell short of analyst forecasts and the company’s share prices dipped, while Amazon’s outdid forecasts and saw its shares jump by 20 percent within 24 hours. That made Amazon bigger (in terms of market capitalization) than Wal-Mart and “generated a huge windfall for CEO Jeff Bezos,” according to CNBC: “At Friday’s early prices, his fortune rose some $8.05 billion.”

Barton’s argument – and the problem cited by Clinton and other critics of “quarterly capitalism” – is that this kind of profit can incentivize businesses to focus on maximizing these short-term gains rather than planning for the long-term success of their company.

As an example of how this short-termism ends up negatively affecting the American economy, Vox’s Matthew Yglesias compares Google, largely driven still by its founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Verizon, a legacy of the old AT&T which is now “highly subject to the whims of the stock market.” Google isn’t as concerned with those whims and so can innovate wildly, even if many of those innovations end up not panning out in the short-term – or ever. Verizon, on the other hand, is very conservative.

That difference makes Yglesias think that “it would be better for America (his emphasis) if telecommunications companies were investing more furiously in improving services and competing with each other.”

Barton, by the way, isn’t the only major business figure to criticize short-termism. Laurence Fink, CEO of asset manager BlackRock, and, somewhat ironically, Carl Icahn, an activist investor known for pressing for stock buybacks, both support Clinton’s arguments.

“You may be surprised by what I’m telling you: I agree with a lot of the things she has been saying,” Icahn told New York Times business writer Andrew Ross Sorkin.

Addressing the rising influence of so-called activist shareholders when they focus on short-term profits at the expense of future growth – and shedding light on excessive buybacks that could take resources away from long-term investment.

Reform executive compensation to better-align the interests of executives with long-term value.

Breaking out of gridlock and short-term thinking in Washington.

These are somewhat vague, of course – Clinton is still early in her campaign and needs to maintain some flexibility both during election season as well as in the White House if she wins. Especially given a likely Republican majority in Congress, a President Clinton wouldn’t be able to get everything she wants.

But some specifics her campaign offers: an increase on capital gains taxes for those in the top tax bracket (“this will only affect couples making more than $465,000 per year”) graduated downward over time so it incentives long-term investment; eliminating capital gains taxes on small business stock held longer than five years as well as those on “hard hit areas – including manufacturing and coal communities facing the departure of plants and production.”

It’s hard to tell if any of these ideas will actually address the problem Clinton cites, or, at a more basic level if that short-termism is really holding back employment, wages, and innovation to the extent she argues it does.

Writing for the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, Len Burman says that Clinton has “misdiagnosed the problem and, even if she’s right, the proposal won’t work as she expects.” One problem Burman identifies is that Clinton’s progressive tax may be counterproductive as it lowers the incentive to hold on to investments longer than a year – under current law, the tax rate drops to 20% from 39.6%, but under Clinton’s proposal that rate would not reach 20% under year six. Investors may just decide to take the hit in the first year instead of waiting six or more years, whereas they currently have a bigger incentive to sell after a year. He also points out that this plan would leave untouched the majority of stock investments: “investments held for longer than a year…is less than half of the dollar volume of assets sold in a typical year” and “60 percent of corporate stock is held by entities not subject to capital gains taxation.”

And Reihan Salam, executive editor of the conservative National Review, counters the Clinton plan by arguing for lower corporate income taxes as a better solution. High taxes, in his description, drive the kind of problems attributed to short-termism.

But Clinton’s critique is one that has backers both on the left, her sought-after primary constituency, as well as in the business world. While the policy specifics might change over time, the political fight against quarterly capitalism is likely only getting started.

When we hear about top-earners in America it becomes very easy to begrudge their tax bracket. Many millionaires and even more billionaires often use investments, tax loopholes and other tricks to push their tax rate below the average middle-class American. Hillary Clinton is not one of those millinaires.

The Clinton campaign machine released the Presidential hopefuls tax sheets from 2007 to 2014, and they revealed a potential POTUS who paid a tax rate of 35.7 percent.

In a statement released by her campaign Friday, the campaign said Bill and Hillary paid nearly $44 million in federal taxes since 2006 and donated nearly $15 million to charity.

In 2014 Bill and Hillary gave 11.4% of their income to charity and in 2015 they have provided their own foundation with more than $5 million.

The statement doesn’t focus in on Hillary Clinton’ earnings an individual but instead focuses in on the couple’s vast fortune. The Clinton’s have earned more than $30 million since mid-2013.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/hillary-clintons-campaign-releases-tax-rate-and-its-pretty-average-01291611/feed0How To Measure Customer Service Effectivenesshttp://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/how-to-measure-customer-service-effectiveness-01288107
http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/how-to-measure-customer-service-effectiveness-01288107#commentsSat, 01 Aug 2015 12:00:34 +0000http://www.insightsquared.com/?p=49213You may think that your team is providing excellent customer service, but at the end of the day, that’s up to your customers to judge.

By tracking specific customer service metrics and analyzing qualitative feedback from customers in surveys, you can measure customer service effectiveness. This will allow you to identify what’s working well (so you can replicate it) and pinpoint areas where you can improve.

We caught up with industry expert Shep Hyken to learn more about how to measure customer service effectiveness.

InsightSquared: How do you think customer service teams should measure their effectiveness?

Shep Hyken: There are different ways to measure customer service effectiveness. The easiest way is to track Net Promoter Score® to determine whether or not you’ve done a good enough job to make customers want to recommend you.

Did they get their problem resolved? How many times did they have to call to get it resolved?

If you’re looking at a self-service metric, you want to say, “Okay, if we’re sending somebody to this self-service solution, like a video, how many calls are we getting on that particular problem after the customer has watched a video?” In other words, is the video working or not?

Everything can be measured. And the old adage is: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” So look at those measurements and find out what’s working. See what the response rate is, the feedback rate. And see how many times customers are calling back for the same issues.

Ask your employees what the top complaints are that customers experience. Once you have a list of what these are, just take the top two or three and work on those. See what you can do to eliminate or mitigate them.

How important is it for support teams to have a high first contact resolution rate?

Paramount. How important is it? That is it. That’s what customers hope for. If they have a question, they only want to ask it once.

If they have a question, they only want to ask it once.

How important do you think it is to resolve problems quickly after getting back to your customers and have a low handle time?

The idea is you want to restore confidence. If you manage get back to customers quickly, you will, in effect, restore that customer’s confidence.

What does your ideal survey look like?

My ideal survey is as little a hassle to the customer as possible. I know my auto dealership is very much into getting a perfect score on their surveys. And I recently said, “I’ll be happy to fill out your survey when it doesn’t take me 10 or 15 minutes to do it.” I believe short and sweet is best, which is why I like the Enterprise Rent-A-Car three question survey, which takes less than a minute or so. If you have enough customers, you can change up your questions and get some different ideas of where things are trending.

But at the end of the day, if you make a customer take 15 or 20 minutes to answer a survey, all the goodwill you have created may go away once they realize that you’re taking valuable time away from them right now.\

Do you think customers should be surveyed after every interaction? Or randomly? Or quarterly?

Ideally, if it’s a customer that keeps on coming back, there should be some consistency in surveying the customer. Going back to the auto dealership that I do business with…every time I do business with them, they send me a survey. There’s another company that I do business with – they’re an Internet-based company – and I get a survey from them once every quarter or so. Sometimes, companies send out surveys annually. I don’t know if annual is the right timeframe or not … What happens if something is wrong and just last month did the survey? Well, it’s going to be 11 months before you realize that they haven’t come back. The goal is to get consistent feedback.

Are quantitative surveys all that’s needed? Or should companies provide a space for customers to leave qualitative feedback?

I prefer the latter – having both. You definitely need the quantitative, but if you can get a response to the why a customer gave the answer that they did, that gives you a valuable insights. You can start to look for similarities and trends.

Americans are not happy with Congress. According to the most recent Gallup poll, only 17% of the public approves of the 114th Congress, one of the lowest approval ratings in history.

And people have reason to be mad. Between the 2013 government shutdown and marathon filibusters, Congress has certainly made a negative impression in recent years. But just how inefficient has Congress been?

Using data from GovTrack.us, InsideGov ranked the 21 most recent Congresses by the number of laws they enacted. This includes every bill and joint resolution passed in Congress that became a law. Interestingly, the five least-productive Congresses have all occurred in the last 10 years.

To be fair, quantity doesn’t guarantee quality, but the number of enacted laws is still a good measure of how productive each Congress is. We’ll start with the Congresses that enacted the most laws and work our way to the true “Do-Nothing” Congresses.

95th Congress (1977-1979)

The 95th Congress has the distinction of being the most productive Congress of the last four decades. In the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Sen. Abraham Ribicoff sponsored the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which became one of the major pieces of legislation passed by the 95th Congress.

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Championed by Rep. Norman Mineta and Sen. Alan K. Simpson, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 is one of the crowning achievements of the 100th Congress. The law granted reparations to Japanese Americans who had been forcefully interned during World War II.

94th Congress (1975-1977)

Spurred on by Jimmy Carter’s call for more environmental protection, the 94th had one of the most ambitious environmental agendas of any Congress, passing several landmark bills such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) and the National Forest Management Act (1976).

99th Congress (1985-1987)

The conclusion of the 99th Congress also saw Democrat Tip O’Neill step down as speaker of the House. O’Neill was the second longest-serving speaker in the U.S. history, holding the title from 1977 to 1987.

98th Congress (1983-1985)

As part of President Reagan’s “War on Drugs,” the 98th Congress passed several laws revising U.S. criminal code, including the Comprehensive Crime Control Act (1984) and Aviation Drug-Trafficking Control Act (1984).

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Even with the election of George H. W. Bush, the Democrats maintained their control in both houses. Among the major legislation passed by the 101st Congress was the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased total overall immigration to the U.S.

106th Congress (1999-2001)

In the final years of Clinton’s presidency, Congress increased its efficiency, enacting 604 laws and passing 769 resolutions. The 106th Congress also marked the beginning of House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s four terms.

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time since 1953, with Strom Thurmond becoming President Pro Tempore. The 97th Congress managed to enact 529 laws, but only passed 370 resolutions, one of the lowest numbers of any Congress.

108th Congress (2003-2005)

During the 108th Congress’s term, U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq escalated. Congress also passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004), which reformed federal terrorism laws.

109th Congress (2005-2007)

The 109th Congress only met for 242 days, the fewest since WWII. Media commentators who dubbed the 109th the worst “Do Nothing Congress” would later eat their words. The 109th was also rocked by scandals, including the resignation of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay following criminal conspiracy charges.

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Led by House Speaker Tom Foley, the 103rd Congress passed several major pieces of legislation, including Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (1993) and the NAFTA Implementation Act (1993). This would be the last time Democrats controlled both Houses until 2007.

111th Congress (2009-2011)

The 111th Congress passed more resolutions (1,464) than any other Congress on this list. But it falls behind in the number of laws it actually enacted. The 111th also received voter backlash over the high unemployment that occurred during its session.

107th Congress (2001-2003)

With the Senate evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, Vice Presidents Al Gore and later Dick Cheney served as the tie-breakers. The majority would switch back to Democrats after Republican Senator Jim Jeffords defected from the GOP.

104th Congress (1995-1997)

The Republican-controlled 104th Congress marked the beginning of the bitter relationship between Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton. A budget impasse between Congress and the Clinton Administration resulted in two government shutdowns.

113th Congress (2013-2015)

The 113th Congress had the lowest approval ratings of any Congress, with disapproval bottoming out during the 2013 government shutdown. The 113th also featured two of the longest filibusters in U.S. history, one from Senator Rand Paul and one from Senator Ted Cruz.

112th Congress (2011-2013)

The 112th narrowly edges by as the least productive Congress of the last four decades. As one of the most politically polarized Congresses in U.S. history, the 112th only enacted 284 laws and nearly shut down the government after initially failing to pass a 2011 federal budget.

U.S. governors make nearly five times as much as the average American adult. The median net compensation in the U.S. is $28,031, while the annual median compensation of a U.S. governor is over $135,000. That figure doesn’t even include the top-notch perks that come with the job, like an official residence provided by the state and free transportation.

Even among governors, there’s substantial variation in annual salary. While many governors are bringing home six figures, others receive significantly less pay. The governor of Maine, for example, makes $70,000 per year, less than half the salary of many other governors. Because the governor’s salary is typically determined by the state’s constitution, there is no federal standard for how much governors get paid.

With that in mind, InsideGov ranked the 21 highest paid governors of 2014, using the most recent data from the Council of State Governments. Here are the governors with the largest salaries:

*Note: this list is based on the 2014 salaries of U.S. governors. Tom Corbett, Pat Quinn, Deval Patrick, Rick Perry, Martin O’Malley and Sean Parnell stepped down as governor in 2015.

Scott Walker

Salary: $144,423

If things go well for Walker in the presidential election, he’ll be receiving a significant pay raise in 2016. Until then, the Wisconsin governor will have to settle for his current salary.

Sean Parnell

Salary: $145,000

Parnell approved a minimum wage increase from $7.75 to $8.85 in 2015 to combat poverty in Alaska. He narrowly lost re-election in 2014.

Peter Shumlin

Salary: $145,538

Shumlin’s annual salary is 7.1% higher than average for all U.S. governors, but is still 3% lower than average for governors from the East.

Mary Fallin

Salary: $147,000

There are currently only six female governors in the U.S. Mary Fallin is the first female governor of Oklahoma, and the only woman to make this list.

John Kasich

Salary: $148,886

The governor of Ohio is eyeing the White House for 2016. He has the advantage of governing one of the most important swing states.

Brian Sandoval

Salary: $149,573

Sandoval’s official salary is 36% higher than the average for governors from the West. Conversely, Nevada is in the bottom 50% of U.S states when it comes to median household income.

Martin O’Malley

Salary: $150,000

O’Malley made one of highest salaries for a governor in 2014. Due to term limits, O’Malley did not seek re-election and is currently running for president.

Rick Perry

Salary: $150,000

Texas is one of four states to pay its governor a $150,000 salary. Like O’Malley, Governor Perry stepped down in 2015, and is running for U.S. president.

Earl Tomblin

Salary: $150,000

West Virginia may pay its governor fairly well, but the state is one of the poorest in the country, with an average per capita income below $23,000 in 2013.

Dan Malloy

Salary: $150,000

The governor of Connecticut joins the $150K club, making 10% more than the average governor.

Deval Patrick

Salary: $151,800

Patrick’s 2014 salary was roughly on par with governors from Eastern states, but 12% greater than the national average for governors. He stepped down as governor in 2015.

Rick Snyder

Salary: $159,300

Rick Snyder returned all but $1 of his governor’s salary to the State of Michigan. He had previously amassed a fortune as an executive and venture capitalist for Gateway.

Jay Inslee

Salary: $166,891

Governor Inslee’s salary is 23% higher than average for all governors, and 52% higher than average for governors from the West.

Jack Markell

Salary: $171,000

Delaware might be one of the smallest states, but it pays one of the highest salaries to its governor.

Jerry Brown

Salary: $173,987

Jerry Brown took a 28-year gap between his second and third terms as California governor. Starting in December, Brown and other California state legislators will receive a 3% pay raise.

Chris Christie

Salary: $175,000

The New Jersey governor may have seen his presidential dreams crushed after the Bridgegate scandal, but for now, Christie can enjoy his relatively high salary as governor.

Terry McAuliffe

Salary: $175,000

The Virginia governor’s salary is nearly 30% higher than the average for all governors. McAuliffe was previously the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Pat Quinn

Salary: $177,412

Interestingly, the average salary for Midwestern governors ($121,679) is roughly $14,000 less than the national average for governors. Illinois is the outlier, with one of the highest governor salaries in 2014.

Andrew Cuomo

Salary: $179,000

Five governors from New York have gone on to become the U.S. president—more than any other state. Receiving a high salary is another norm for New York governors, although Governor Cuomo has reduced his salary by 5% starting in 2011.

Bill Haslam

Salary: $181,980

By state statute, the governor of Tennessee must receive the same salary as the chief justice of the Supreme Court. While Tennessee pays its governor more than any other southern state, it’s still chump change for Governor Haslam, who’s worth $2 billion and returns his salary to the state.

Tom Corbett

Salary: $187,818

The former governor of Pennsylvania takes the top spot with a 2014 salary of $187,818. Corbett’s salary was 38% higher than average for all governors.

However, 1.7% of of Corbett’s salary was repaid as part of a statewide management pay-freeze, lowering the total amount he received.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/the-highest-paid-u-s-governors-01287324/feed0Technology: The Powerful Political Campaign Managerhttp://www.business2community.com/government-politics/technology-powerful-political-campaign-manager-01289162
http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/technology-powerful-political-campaign-manager-01289162#commentsFri, 31 Jul 2015 15:22:08 +0000http://www.business2community.com/?p=1289162Politics is serious business. Businesses, to reach their consumers, are using technology today like nobody’s business. Why should it be any different for politics? The heat is on. Who is intelligent and has packed all sandwiches for the perfect picnic on the technology spectrum to cast the most influence on its voters? Is the traditional campaigning dead? Or will this be the evolution of revolution the world of politics has to revel in for the better times?

Donald Trump, the real estate mogul, needs no introduction. Barely six weeks old in the political chessboard, running for presidency, Donald has already outsmarted his much-experienced opponents with his controversial outspoken demeanor. But the reason he is more in the minds of people than his seasoned opponents is because of the endless social media lashing he has been bestowed with for simply – being him.

Barack Obama, for his second term, just as he had in the first, did not mince any favors he could have with technology to garner voters to his benefit.

Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, taking cue from Eric Schmidt and other top executives from companies like Apple and Facebook hired digital prodigies from promising tech start-ups to mastermind the architecture for Obama’s second term campaign.

The crew was a steaming hot mix of data scientists, financial analysts, a biophysicist, and three professional poker players.

The whole commerce of marketing in the digital universe is quantifiable. That’s what makes this so exciting.

There are specific platform tools like Aristotle and TrailBlazer that take care of end-end campaign management like reporting, outsourcing, funding, voter data, data matching, contributor data lookup, and district matching dataset.

Dan Wagner, a number-cruncher in Obama’s campaign, says, “The thing about online is, you can collect data very cheaply, very widely, and very quickly.” Speaking for the exponential use of mobile technology, Dan points out that all that a mobile needs is a single social media app on it and the interactions between the networks become automatic and autonomous. He maintains, “The device is almost irrelevant. What’s valuable is the network.”

Politicians, who are becoming increasingly savvier by the day in their composure of being able to connect better with the audience, have Facebook and Twitter as their top deployments in their marketing agenda.

Facebook, of course, is used as a primary medium to extend reach, while Twitter is a favorite for its uncanny ability to maintain a continuous dialogue.

The reason Facebook is the apple of the eye for the vast legion of advertisers, is because of its offering – which is Facebook’s unlimited power to generate a constant trickle of information from its unsuspecting users.

Max Kalehoff, Senior VP for SocialCode, a commercial ad tech company elaborates, “The thing about the new social networks is that they are creating unprecedented consumer profiles. Most people are logged onto Facebook whenever they do anything else on the Web. It creates this incredible bread-crumb trail.”

Technology is an extremely economical conductor to get to a larger number of voters in an ultra-short period of time. Another prime USP of technology is its discretion to impart influence in the most organic manner possible. A friend comments on a politician’s facebook page, I will be able to know. That’s telling me that my good friend is doing something to do with that politician. There is instantly an atom of recognition created about that politician in my head already.

Politicians, to earn public support and votes, have been ceremoniously kissing babies, leaking fake news, limelighting offensive statements about ethnicities, races and sexualities, staging sign wars, getting tongue-in-cheek with dog-whistle politics, and dropping bombs in Google to create their own political signature craters.

Getting into the groove of technology to nail their political campaigns on the high wall is only being part of living in the present and working according to the trends demanded by the current era. Technology is here to help Politics, and it doesn’t need our votes as to win.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/technology-powerful-political-campaign-manager-01289162/feed0No High Level Military Participation In Iran Dealhttp://www.business2community.com/government-politics/no-high-level-military-participation-in-iran-deal-01289222
http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/no-high-level-military-participation-in-iran-deal-01289222#commentsWed, 29 Jul 2015 20:35:59 +0000http://technologysecurity.wordpress.com/?p=999It is glaringly obvious that the US military played no role, or only a minor role, in the recently concocted Iran deal. The absence of any senior military officials in Geneva illustrates better than anything else that the deal is an entirely political one which is designed to mainly be window dressing on a restart of relations with the Iranian regime. For this pleasure the United States and its allies in Europe are contributing massive amounts of high technology and releasing money so Iran can buy products from them. Ironically, the fact is that Iran will probably spend the bulk of the money on armaments, mostly from Russia, China and North Korea, and on underwriting the costs of its nuclear and missile programs.

The absence of the Pentagon from the negotiations is not, of course, lost on America’s allies in the Middle East. Because the deal is political and has no solid national security component, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the smaller Persian Gulf states have reason for alarm. And the United States, aware fully that the agreement is wallpaper on a trade and political deal, has sent its Defense Secretary off to the area to offer weapons du jour to them as some form of compensation.

Clearly no one in the region can afford not to be prepared against a formidable ambitious Iran equipped with nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

That is why Israel is beefing up its ballistic missile defense systems. The newest of these in the last stage of development is called David’s Sling. It will compliment the existing Arrow and Iron Dome systems already deployed.

“David’s Sling is designed to intercept medium-range ballistic weapons, especially highly accurate missiles and large rockets such as Hezbollah’s M-600,” according to the left wing Israeli paper, Haaretz. A number of US companies led by Raytheon and ATK are working with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems on this new system, which will replace the aging Hawk and Patriot systems deployed in Israel.

But as the experts know fully well, there is no 100% missile defense system. The excellent Iron Dome, for example, did not defeat all of the missiles fired by Hamas onto Israeli territory; it did however focus on the missiles most likely to hit civilian and defense targets. Similarly, David’s Sling is optimized so it can distinguish between real threats and dummy warheads, something important in reducing the threat profile to something more manageable. But with atomic weapons on Iranian missiles, even an off target rocket threatens this small and vulnerable country.

So it can be expected that Israel will significantly upgrade its early warning capability and its offensive nuclear strike capacity. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is nearly defense-less against an Iranian threat. Will it rely on the US for protection? Or even secretly on Israel? Or will the Saudis try and accommodate the Iranians, if any real accomodation is possible. One cost for Saudi Arabia will be halting support for Sunni rebels and pulling out of Yemen. The Iranians will also demand political changes in Egypt as the price of any deal. Because the Saudi dream is closely linked to its leadership of Sunni muslims, this will be a serious blow to their political ambitions and could imperil the regime at home.

Israel will bolster its first strike capability by adding satellite capability to detect any preparations for an attack on Israel and by building its nuclear strike ability. Because the new Stealth F-35 is questionable as a nuclear weapons platform, it is likely Israel will embark on a modernization program for its F-15’s by working to minimize radar profiles and improve its counter measure systems, especially to counter Russian supplied S-300 air defenses. One can imagine the role of the F-35 will be to take out the S-300 while the F-15’s take out the Iranian missile site with tactical nuclear weapons.

There is little doubt Iran has been working with North Korea on both its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. This include missiles and other means, perhaps mini submarines. The North Koreans have developed mini submarines which are hard to detect and, on suicide missions, could try and enter Israeli harbors. In addition, Iran is putting some of its nuclear assets off shore: they have three sites in Syria plus the work done in North Korea, which probably includes weapons testing. US intelligence is half blind when it comes to North Korea, but there is no doubt the Iran-Syria-North Korea linkage is very deep. In 2004 there was a massive train explosion in Ryongchŏn North Korea. The North Koreans said it was an accident and it was at first thought the explosion was designed to occur when a train carrying the North Korean dictator was passing by. But later and credible reports consider the explosion an Israeli Mossad operation designed to take out Syrian nuclear scientists on board. Iranian scientists may also have been among them.

Unfortunately none of these subjects nor their implications were part of the Iran negotiations. Whether the Pentagon raised any objections to the deal, or tried to take part in the process, remains unknown. While the Pentagon’s budgets are being slashed and troop strength reduced, the Pentagon has not shown much courage about anything. Even so, had the Pentagon participated the lousy deal we have would never have been agreed, and Iran would not have been cut loose with billions of dollars to pursue its nuclear program.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/no-high-level-military-participation-in-iran-deal-01289222/feed0Ranking Of Every U.S. Governor From Most Liberal To Most Conservativehttp://www.business2community.com/government-politics/ranking-of-every-u-s-governor-from-most-liberal-to-most-conservative-01289263
http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/ranking-of-every-u-s-governor-from-most-liberal-to-most-conservative-01289263#commentsWed, 29 Jul 2015 19:36:15 +0000http://governors.insidegov.com/stories/5239/governor-most-liberal-conservative

In the 2014 mid-term elections, the GOP solidified its control of both the House and the Senate. Republicans also dominated when it came to electing governors. There are currently 31 Republican governors and only 18 Democratic ones; Alaska is the only state with an Independent governor.

Using data from OnTheIssues, InsideGov broke down the political ideology of every governor. OnTheIssues analyzes public statements, press releases, campaign platforms and voting records to score each governor’s view on important issues. We then converted these scores to a single scale from -10 (most liberal) to +10 (most conservative).

Overall, the Southern states have the most conservative governors, with an average ideology score of 3.5. The Midwest is a close second, scoring 3.4 on average.

Conversely, the Eastern region has the most liberal governors, with an average score of -0.9. The Western states are fairly mixed and have an average score of 0.9.

In some cases, a governor’s ideology does not reflect the overall political leaning of the state. Maryland, for example, is one of the most Democratic states in the country, but has a Republican governor.

Scroll through the graphic below to see a breakdown of each governor’s political ideology score. You can also filter for region or by party.

With an ideology score of -5.0, Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf is currently the most liberal governor. On the other end of the spectrum is Butch Otter of Idaho, with an ideology score of 7.0. Democratic governors Steve Bullock (MT) and Earl Tomblin (WV) are outliers for their party, with overall conservative scores.

In case you missed it, venture capitalist (and past Twitter Platform Director) Ryan Sarver recently asked his 285K followers to list their five favorite apps and then compiled his unofficial results here. We asked Chris Vaughn, the founder and CEO of alcohol delivery app Saucey, the same question in our interview and we even got him to take a screenshot of his phone. Check it out!

Appboy: What’s on your phone homescreen? What apps do you find more useful?Chris: Saucey and Uber are my must haves. Love Instagram. Use Gilt to buy fun stuff for the house and office. Calls, texts and emails are my primary communication. Calendar keeps me sane. Passbook for flights and events.

Appboy:How did you get involved with mobile? Chris: In college I built a development company that was building websites, apps and ran online strategy for local businesses. When the first iPhone came out, I (along with pretty much everyone else who got one) knew very quickly that mobile was going to be the future, and we started incorporating mobile optimized strategies into these local businesses. Ultimately I transitioned into running product for a local start-up. I designed and built out their first iOS and Android clients and have been in mobile ever since.

Appboy:How do you feel the mobile landscape will change in the next few years? Chris: Your mobile device will increasingly become a tool that unlocks the world around you, personalized to your behaviors. Think of it less like a phone, and more like a device that enables everything that you do. It’s interacting with your home, your car, bringing your city and services to your location, as well as being a portal for multiple channels of communication. This also means it will fundamentally change the way businesses operate. Brick-and-mortar locations will become less destination focused and more warehouse-based as customers bring their world to them.

Appboy:What would you say your biggest mobile marketing success has been, and how was it achieved? Chris: Anytime we’re able to control the flow of information to customers in a way that matches the marketing activation it’s a win. For example, if we’re trying to surprise users with something fun, then we’ll construct the communication to come all at once across channels. If we’re focusing on re-engagement, then we make sure that conversation happens over time with channel appropriate messaging being presenting to the users at different action points.

Appboy:How does Saucey best engage its mobile users? Chris: Through delivering a reliable and great customer experience. When we nail the experience, then our customers increase their interaction on the platform, giving us new ways to communicate with them.

Appboy:What has been the biggest lesson you’ve learned in your career in the industry? Chris: Move fast and get in market. The biggest mistake I see most first time entrepreneurs making is wanting everything to be perfect, and they’re scared someone might take their idea while they’re working on it. If you move fast enough, you shouldn’t care if everyone knows your idea because you’ll already be in market, learning from customers and with a better plan for execution.

Each month, the #engage Mobile Influencers interview series profiles experts, thought leaders and rising stars in mobile, giving them an opportunity to share their personal experiences, preferences and predictions when it comes to mobile.

Last week, we talked to Chris Vaughn, Founder and CEO of alcohol delivery app Saucey (check out that blog post here). Chris was a guest speaker at May’s #engage Mobile App Meetup in San Francisco, but he had some additional insight about mobile marketing, messaging and customer engagement to share. Take a look!

Appboy:What has the most difficult – and conversely, the most rewarding – part of successfully building a business around a mobile app? Chris: Saucey is really a very optimized logistics and operations company, with a simple mobile and web interface for customers. Balancing a logistics business with a fun consumer-facing approach takes a team that knows how to drive hard on operations, while being fun and user-focused at the same time. Building that company culture and team has been extremely rewarding.

Appboy:What steps have you found useful in assessing and optimizing the effectiveness of your app and its messaging? Chris: Test everything. See what performs, remove the low performers and double down on the winners.

Saucey Founder and CEO Chris Vaughn

Appboy:How would you advise differentiating your mobile strategies depending on platform, device etc.?Chris: Know when and how you’re hitting customers with messaging. Tailor your strategy to match how they interact with that device.

Appboy:What advice do you have for companies looking to establish a stronger mobile marketing presence?Chris: There are so many mobile marketing companies out there, all of them promising the world. Speak with your constituents at other companies and see who’s performing for them. Also, make sure you’re addressing both ends of the funnel. Getting users in the door is only half the battle.

Appboy:What are some other companies who are using mobile marketing in a way you admire?Chris: Shyp has done a great job communicating with customers from onboarding through the first 2-3 weeks of usage.

Appboy:What advice can you give about distinguishing yourself from competitors who have similar functionality?Chris: Make sure that you deliver a superior service with a brand people love.

Appboy:Favorite mobile messaging channel – push, in-app, email, News Feed Cards – and why?Chris: We love surprising our users with a well-written push message. We don’t do it too often, but when we send a push and see screenshots instantly popping up on Instagram and Twitter then we know we made our users laugh.

Thank you so much, Chris!

]]>http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/engage-mobile-influencers-sauceys-chris-vaughn-part-two-of-two-01285171/feed0Lessons From App Experts: How Reserve is Aiming to Change the Way We Dine Outhttp://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/lessons-from-app-experts-how-reserve-is-aiming-to-change-the-way-we-dine-out-01286434
http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/lessons-from-app-experts-how-reserve-is-aiming-to-change-the-way-we-dine-out-01286434#commentsTue, 28 Jul 2015 01:37:47 +0000http://info.localytics.com/blog/lessons-from-app-experts-how-reserve-is-aiming-to-change-the-way-we-dine-out

We are chatting with Greg Hong of Reserve about how they are revolutionizing how mobile users approach restaurant reservations and handling the check. Greg is Reserve’s CEO, Co-Founder and Board Director, responsible for setting and executing the vision for the company. Prior to starting Reserve, Greg was a small business consultant and the Director of Business Operations at true[X], where he ran their ad operations team from pre-revenue to $20 million.

Where did you guys get the idea for the app? What need do you see it filling?

One night in late 2013, and my friend Joe Marchese and I were thinking about going out to eat. We were in the mood for a delicious meal at a nice restaurant with a few friends. After a little research, we picked a place that looked good and started checking around to see if we could get a table. When we couldn’t, we researched a new spot and tried again. After the first few attempts, it became clear that this simple meal out was becoming way too complex. There had to be a better way.

So we got this idea to create an app that makes every part of dining better — both for guests and restaurants.

The Reserve app makes it easy for you to go out for a great meal by curating a list of the best restaurants in each city to make sure that no matter where you go, you’ll have a great time, and helping you effortlessly pay when the meal is done.

How do you plan to expand over the next year?

We continue to focus on growing our presence in New York, Boston, SF, LA and Chicago — both in terms of bringing Reserve to more hungry diners and partnering with more great restaurants. We also plan to continue expanding, bringing Reserve to more people and more partners in more cities. Lastly, always working on new features and plan to introduce even more ways you can enhance your dining experience with Reserve.

How do you acquire new users and promote awareness?

Given that dining out is a very social behavior, we see a lot of great organic growth simply from Reserve users dining out with their friends, who then want to use the app themselves. We also try to forge fruitful partnerships with organizations whose users who might be interested in the idea of a personal dining concierge and all the convenience and personalization we offer. And we are very active on social media. Instagram and Twitter have been huge for us, largely because our diners are sharing their great Reserve experiences with those communities.

How important is push and/or in-app messaging to your marketing efforts?

Messaging is a core part of our product – as a dining concierge, communication between us and our diners is very important. We use in-app messages, as well as text and push notifications, to communicate with diners about the status of their reservation requests, alternative options that a restaurant might be offering them, customer service issues and more.

What’s the most popular feature in your app?

Certainly the most buzzed about feature on social media is our effortless payment system at the end of the meal. The end result improves hospitality in a restaurant and is an experience our diners love.

We’ve worked particularly hard on creating a more seamless payment experience at the end of the meal — automating payment so that the check arrives already taken care of. When the bill arrives, it comes with a small black and gold card letting you know the check is paid, and we’ve seen shots of these go viral on social media. [Image featured from a Chicago Tribune article profiling Reserve].

How do you determine your feature roadmap?

When thinking about new features and updates, we’re always working to make dining better for both our diners and our restaurant partners. Speaking from my experience with Reserve, balancing the needs of two sides of a marketplace can be difficult, but incredibly rewarding for all involved when done right. As a dining concierge service, the reason we’ve been successful is directly related to the value we place on prioritizing problem solving for restaurants. We talk with our partners daily and are always asking for feedback from our diners to help us prioritize our product roadmaps. We try to balance the work that we do for both parties to make sure that updates and new features for both diners and restaurants are rolling out consistently.

How do you garner and respond to user feedback?

We actively ask for and listen to feedback from our stakeholders — both restaurants and diners — on what we can be doing better and what pain points we should be addressing. We analyze the data and the research and then prioritize, test and roll out the features that matter most to people — the things that are going to have the greatest impact.

Specifically with our restaurant partners, we’re able to take their feedback and create solutions that can enhance their businesses, allowing them to provide exceptional hospitality without cutting into the very slim margins that many restaurateurs face.

Do you use app analytics to run new marketing campaigns? If yes, how so?

At Reserve, we’re very data-driven and as we grow we’re increasingly focused on using analytics of all kinds to help us improve our marketing efforts. Although with marketing there will always be some intangible elements, we’re always trying to track our campaigns back to hard numbers — to downloads and key metrics in the app.

Where do you see apps and mobile going?

We’re living in an increasingly on-the-go, busy world, so more and more services will be taking advantage of mobile and starting mobile-first. We’re also increasingly seeing mobile apps that try to help you spend less time with technology, providing you with a service quickly so you can get on with your busy day and spend time on the people and things that are important to you. For everything from rapid food delivery to photo sharing to finding a place to stay during an upcoming business trip, it’s all about reducing friction — providing services easily, with the click of a button.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/lessons-from-app-experts-how-reserve-is-aiming-to-change-the-way-we-dine-out-01286434/feed0Lowe’s Innovation Labs Director Answers 4 Questions For Marketing Innovatorshttp://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/lowes-innovation-labs-director-answers-4-questions-marketing-innovators-01286918
http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/lowes-innovation-labs-director-answers-4-questions-marketing-innovators-01286918#commentsMon, 27 Jul 2015 20:46:46 +0000http://www.business2community.com/?p=1286918Kyle Nel is executive director of Lowe’s Innovation Labs, where he has developed the Lowe’s Holoroom, an augmented and virtual-reality home improvement design tool, the OSHbot autonomous retail service robot, and in-store and online 3D scanning and printing.

Nel, who serves on a variety of advisory committees and boards, including Google Consumer Surveys, Fringe Factory, and the Insights and Innovation Exchange, recently participated in our “4 Questions for Marketing Innovators” series.

1. What is one marketing topic that is most important to you as an innovator?

Technology and marketing are both fields that have been completely transformed over the past decade, and the pace of change is only accelerating. The critical piece to keep in mind, though, is the human component. Cramming tech in any context just to say you are innovating is not enough. Particularly in the retail setting, tech has to make that experience simpler, more intuitive, and add real value to the customer, or it’s just noise.

2. Why is this so important?

Without a focus on people, technology is often a solution looking for a problem. We start innovation with a process called science-fiction prototyping that grounds our work in true narrative and enables us to explore possible ways that technology could impact our lives in the future and address the challenges we know our customers face every day.

This process has helped our teams bridge the “chasm of how” that puzzles entrepreneurs and innovators all around the world, and provides a shared understanding of how technology and market needs intersect. By beginning with a story, we create a common language and vision for the organization from which we seek out partners and build new technologies further and faster than we ever predicted at the start.

3. How will the customer experience be improved by this?

Customers have many choices of where to shop, and little time or patience or attention for innovation efforts that don’t solve their problems. Lowe’s Innovation Labs has introduced three projects so far that each address a specific need for our customers.

The Lowe’s Holoroom was our first project. It is an augmented and virtual-reality home improvement design tool that helps our customers visualize a completed home improvement project and share that vision with their families and friends. We know that the visualization challenge alone stops many projects in their tracks.

Our most recently introduced project is an in-store 3D scanning and printing service that puts the power of personalization right in the hands of our customers as they can choose to customize home improvement objects and scan in their own items. These objects can then be printed in a wide range of materials and shipped directly to a customer’s home.

4. How will this improve the effectiveness of marketing?

Customers get excited about innovation when it’s accessible and fun, and this strengthens the trust they have that a brand understands and can meet their unique needs. Our OSHbot autonomous retail service robot is a great example of this phenomenon. The initial excitement at launch drove significant foot traffic into the store to see the first retail robot, but what we are really excited about is that as the novelty wears off, our customers and employees are highly engaged and responding to the robot as a useful tool to make shopping our stores more efficient and therefore enjoyable.

When I started Spark Strategic Ideas in 2008, brands were just starting to uncover how they could connect with their customers through social media. At first, it was just me in a coffee shop but as we started to grow, we immediately saw the value of integrating social media into our advertising, marketing and public relations plans. The second employee I ever hired was a social media manager and the benefits of using social media were immediately clear.

What do you believe the benefits of using social media for business?

In today’s business world, social media plays a huge role in spreading awareness and communicating with current and prospective customers. The goal is much more than simply posting updates. Instead, we strive to create conversation and build true connections. Additionally, the interactivity can be tracked and, at times, used as a direct response tool. Encouraging open feedback facilitates the remedy of negative situations while highlighting positive perceptions. When properly managed, social media is a customer service arm, a goodwill builder and a creator of brand advocates. At Spark, we believe targeted, brand-specific content with a distinctive voice both invites non-fans to learn more about your company and encourages existing fans to become more passionate. Unlike traditional advertising, social media allows a brand to gain the most important insight of all: the customer’s. When Spark is managing a social media page, we engage. We pose our own questions. We put out fires before they’re built. Most of all, we give our clients a voice in the conversation already surrounding their brand.

What do you think are common mistakes business owners make when building brand awareness on social media?

The biggest mistake business owners make when building brand awareness on social media is not having a true strategy. Often when a company decides they are “ready” for social media, they don’t step back to think about their overarching business goals and what role social media can play. All too often companies will blanket social media platforms with no real strategy, which results in a mediocre presence instead of starting with a few strategically chosen platforms and seeing lasting results. Companies can also fail when a social media manager who is capable of responding to customers on a timely basis is not specifically designated. Another mistake a lot of business owners make is not putting a budget behind their social media efforts; the content may be impactful but it’s a businesses job to ensure the right people are seeing it at the right time and place.

What qualities do you think social media managers should have?

Social media managers must be nimble and customer-focused. After all, to the end consumers, they are often the face of the company. They have to be able to multi-task and be dedicated. Social media doesn’t stop at 5 p.m. It’s not about just creating good content – it’s about going above and beyond to build a relationship. They must be pro–active and craft protocols for situations that may or may not ever happen. It helps if they have had a background in public relations and crisis management considering they will be acting as the voice of a brand. A strong social media manager is a team player and integrates social media with other aspects of an advertising and marketing plan. They also have to know their limits – when they can be comfortable responding and when things need to be brought up the chain of command. It’s a delicate balance but when found, it’s a beautiful thing.

How do Business owners know if their social media campaign is working?

First business owners need to define what “working” means – they need to define the goals of the campaign and how it will be measured. With a pro–active plan, there’s not much social media can’t do. These days, social media can build awareness in new markets, drive product trial and even drive traffic to a website or a physical location. The key is to define success and measure your progress so you can adjust. It’s okay — even preferable — to experiment but there must be consistency in the overall campaign and KPIs must be consistently reviewed.

How do you see social media evolving over the next 5 years…What do you hope to see?

I think social media will continue to become more fragmented, while also becoming further integrated into our daily lives. I’m hoping that we will find the right balance between the two without forgetting how important genuine human interaction and actual face-to-face conversation truly is.

If you could share one best practice about using social media to grow a business, what would it be?

Think of social media as a virtual coffee shop – it’s your opportunity to build real relationships with your customers and prospective customers. Talk to them. Go where they go. Ask questions. Don’t be afraid to learn.

What are your favorite platforms for social media marketing?

The social media mix usually changes with each client based on their goals and needs but some of our favorites include: Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.

Describe one of your social media campaigns that went really well.

This example is more than just a campaign; it’s the establishment of a social media presence for an internationally known brand. Schleich, a toy figurine manufacturer, is a European-based company with their North American headquarters based in Charlotte, N.C. In October 2013, Schleich tasked Spark with creating and launching the company’s first ever social media program. When Spark was initially hired to manage Schleich’s social media, our first step was to get to know the product as if it were our own. We scoured the website, met with the management and sales team, toured the warehouse. And yes, we had a chance to play with the toys. We had multiple conversations about the Schleich philosophy and mission, cultural and brand beliefs, key audiences, tone of brand voice, needed tools, timelines, expectations, and more with their management team. Together, we crafted a cohesive social media plan for Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest and decided which KPI’s would be most telling. Not only did the Spark team surpass all initial goals, many of the KPIs were adjusted during the year as the benchmarked goals were surpassed. This progress continually challenged the team to constantly seek new ways to enhance brand awareness and engagement. Between October 2013 and June of 2015, Schleich gained approximately 55,770 fans on Facebook. Schleich has accrued 867 followers on Twitter and gleaned more than 1,540 Pinterest followers.

How is your social media strategy adapted to your industry?

Our social media strategy is constantly changing because the industry never stops moving. Most of the more popular platforms have programs in place for clients who have millions to spend on their social media strategy. However, the small mom and pop locations are consistently overlooked, which can create a constant struggle for the middle guys. That’s where you have to really focus on standing out, building campaigns that have an impact on the right audience and setting your company apart from the competition.

It can be hard to disprove people’s opinions. That is, unless the opinion in question is one of the inflammatory remarks that flies out of Donald Trump’s mouth.

The amount of racial-, gender- and class-based insults Trump has hurled throughout his time in the public spotlight is simply staggering. The only thing more surprising is that Trump is somehow currently leading the GOP primary polls (though his final descent might be beginning after his recent comments about John McCain).

Here at InsideGov, we know that Trump’s presidential campaign is more or less a giant marketing campaign for his wide-ranging business investments. His bid for the Republican nomination might last longer than it did in 2012, but make no mistake — it will eventually peter out. The 15 percent of so of the GOP constituency that currently supports him very well could do so until the bitter end. But once Trump’s opponents start to wither away and their supporters consolidate, Trump will stand no chance at representing Republicans in 2016.

There’s also a decent chance his campaign is self-suspended long before that because of an insensitive remark or three that sends him plummeting in the polls. So, we gathered 23 of his most insulting comments on the record, and set out to disprove those that are refutable.

Click on the button below or press your arrow keys to navigate through our own little Trump Tower of Intolerance.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

At least we know Trump won’t lose any sleep over all the criticism he’s bound to receive over the next year.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Even if we ignore the fact that it’s offensive to suggest China would lie about our planet heating up to extreme levels just to gain an economic advantage, it’s still an absolutely ludicrous statement.

On exporting goods to China: “Listen you m—–f——, we’re going to tax you 25 percent!”

Perhaps someone should tell Trump that many selections in his signature clothing line are manufactured in China so that the business magnate can cut costs.

“When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”

To diplomats, international trading is a give and take between two countries. To Trump, it’s a win-or-die competition.

This is a topical “joke” from Trump, of course. Doesn’t he have such a lovely, presidential sense of humor?

The U.S. will invite El Chapo, the Mexican drug lord who just escaped prison, to become a U.S. citizen because our "leaders" can't say no!

“I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me —and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

Nobody builds walls better than Trump, eh? Is it Trump who spends hours in the blistering heat performing manual labor to build his landscape ventures? Or would that be the very people he’s insulting, as one Mexican labor worker suggested in a viral YouTube response to Trump?

We don’t need to give you the background on this flat-out lie. We will give you a cold, hard fact to dispute it, though. According to Politico, Latinos accounted for 9 percent of documented sexual assaults in 2013, far below their representation of 17 percent of the U.S. population. Whites, meanwhile, accounted for 71 percent of sexual assaults, above their 63 percent makeup of the U.S. population.

Trump regards Mexicans as a lesser being meant to be contained south of the border, like children in a playpen. On July 23, he predicted that if he were elected president, the Hispanics would “love me.” Is he so sure about that?

Don’t worry, he’s actually a racist when it comes to African-Americans, too!

Our great African American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!

“Laziness is a trait in the blacks. … Black guys counting my money! I hate it.”

This is the only quote in this article that is not a direct quote from Trump — former Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino president John R. Donnell alleged in a tell-all book that Trump once said this to a black accountant.

In the very same conversation alleged by Donnell, Trump managed to grossly stereotype another race. Click on to the next page to see who Trump said did want protecting his money.

“The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

Yep — Trump unleashed two ancient, racist stereotypes in one conversation with the former president of one of his hotels.

Known Trump nemesis Rosie O’Donnell is just one of many women who have bore the brunt of Trump’s temper. It’s incredibly unbecoming for someone of Trump’s stature to engage in name-calling based off someone’s looks.

“Rosie O’Donnell’s disgusting both inside and out. You take a look at her, she’s a slob. She talks like a truck driver, she doesn’t have her facts, she’ll say anything that comes to her mind.”

One more O’Donnell barb here, just because Trump shows his true, petty core when talking about the former co-host of ‘The View.’

“Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States. There’s never been a Secretary of State so bad as Hillary. The world blew up around us. We lost everything, including all relationships. There wasn’t one good thing that came out of that administration or her being Secretary of State.”

Another lob thrown at a prominent, successful woman. And this one is just factually incorrect — would she really be a favorite for the 2016 election if she had been the worst Secretary of State in U.S. history? Even worse than Lawrence Eagleburger, who only served for six weeks between 1992-93? Nope. Trump just shows his alarming lack of political knowledge here.

“If you can’t get rich dealing with politicians, there’s something wrong with you.”

Disparaging the very field that you are now expressing the highest of interest in! A fascinating bit of foresight from Trump, there.

“We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a fucking school in Brooklyn.”

We just negotiated nuclear peace with Iran. Would it really be prudent to elect someone who said this about America’s military presence in the Middle East?

“A certificate of live birth is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination as a birth certificate.”

You might remember that Trump was one of the outspoken members of the Obama birther movement. Your guess as to what the above statement even means is as good as ours. Either way, suggesting that the president would release a false document about his birth is misguided at best, and slanderous at worst.

“Free trade is terrible. Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. But we have stupid people [in office].”

Personally, I would love to see who Trump would put in office as his chief diplomats. Would we get to see Ivanka and Donald Jr. at the negotiating table with China?

“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK, I hate to tell you.”

While McCain was a POW in Vietnam, Trump was living the lavish lifestyle of dining and clubbing with beautiful woman. To quote the Washington Post: “As Trump was preparing to take Manhattan, McCain was trying to relearn how to walk.”

So, you decide which is more heroic: withholding wartime information from torturers, or doing shots with models?

“I saw a report yesterday. There’s so much oil, all over the world, they don’t know where to dump it. And Saudi Arabia says, ‘Oh, there’s too much oil.’ Do you think they’re our friends? They’re not our friends.”

Trump, showing off his diplomatic side and in-depth knowledge of the petroleum industry.

“All the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”

Right. How could they resist a guy with such nuanced thoughts on global policy across a wide variety of topics?

“One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”

It’s old news that college costs present a daunting hurdle. But what you may not know is that you can still get access to great courses at top universities without having to pay a dime.

How? Many colleges offer MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) through independent companies or the university’s own site. Some assume that only community colleges offer this option, but those looking to learn from institutions beyond their city’s borders can do so without too much hassle. Whether you’re a high school grad looking for a challenge or an adult who wants to indulge in world-class learning on their own time, there’s probably something for you in the long list of MOOCs offered by these institutions.

The education experts at StartClass sifted through the top ranked schools to find those who offer MOOCs. They highlighted a few interesting examples of classes and detailed the platform each school uses. Note that these courses aren’t for credit.

Wesleyan University

Notable courses: Property and Liability: An Introduction to Law and Economics; Analysis of a Complex Kind; Marriage and the Movies: A History;
The Language of Hollywood: Storytelling, Sound, and Color; How to Change the World; Passion Driven StatisticsPlatform used: Coursera

Wellesley College

Notable courses: Shakespeare: On the Page and in Performance; Introduction to Global Sociology; Was Alexander Great? The Life, Leadership and Legacies of History’s Greatest Warrior; Introduction to Human EvolutionPlatform used: EdX

Johns Hopkins University

Notable courses: Psychological First Aid; Confronting Gender Based Violence: Global Lessons with Case Studies from India; Major Depression in the Population: A Public Health ApproachPlatform used: Coursera

University of Chicago

University of Pennsylvania

Notable courses: An Introduction to Corporate Finance; The Global Business of Sports; Modern & Contemporary American Poetry; Introduction to Key Constitutional Concepts and Supreme Court CasesPlatform used: Coursera

]]>http://www.business2community.com/us-news/31-elite-colleges-that-offer-free-online-learning-01284554/feed0Asia Sets to Dominate the Global Manufacturing Sectorhttp://www.business2community.com/world-news/asia-sets-to-dominate-the-global-manufacturing-sector-01284412
http://www.business2community.com/world-news/asia-sets-to-dominate-the-global-manufacturing-sector-01284412#commentsThu, 23 Jul 2015 18:03:13 +0000https://www.businessvibes.com/blog/Asia-Sets-Dominate-Global-Manufacturing-SectorManufacturing as the most vital sector across the global contributes over US$10 trillion to global economy every year. Despite the global manufacturing production has had low growth for the last few years (2.3% in 2014), the annual growth of manufacturing value added has still remained around 1% for three consecutive years, and the currently global manufacturing sector are mainly driven by developing and emerging economies, particularly Asia is dominating the global manufacturing market, according the Manufacturing Index 2014 from investment consulting company Cushman & Wakefield.

The index analyses countries worldwide by assessing coasts, risks and operating conditions and relevant factors including logistics; the likelihood of natural disaster; economic risk; and energy and labour costs for manufacturing. The result indicates that Malaysia is the world’s top manufacturing market, and Taiwan places second with South Korea in third and Thailand in fourth.

The largest manufacturing country in the world, China, is well positioned in fifth overall, performing strongly in terms of costs, but the nation falls short of the top spot due to its weak score in the risk category.

Malaysia has become a new investors’ favourite, thanks to its central location in Southeast Asia, high annual GDP growth rate of 4.68% from 2000 to 2014, its pro-business policies, comparatively stable economic and political environment, sophisticated financial facilities, and well-developed infrastructure. Today, Malaysia’s manufacturing industry constitutes over 25% of GDP, with leading manufacturing sector by some margin is electrical and electronic products, which constitute 32.9% of Malaysia’s exports, and as such is a significant driver of the economy.

Singapore, as the world’s best country for doing business, is also becoming one of the leading markets for manufacturing sector. Singapore’s manufacturing output contributes over 21% of its total GDP, with major industries such as include chemicals, electronics, precision engineering, transport engineering, biomedical manufacturing, and general manufacturing.

As Asia continues to be at the leading position of the global manufacturing sector, Manufacturing Solutions Expo (MSE) 2015 will presents one-stop exhibition platform for products and solutions providers in both Asia and the World to showcase innovative solutions, cost effective technologies and products to improve productivity and efficiency within and beyond manufacturing industries.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/world-news/asia-sets-to-dominate-the-global-manufacturing-sector-01284412/feed0How to Get Your Business from ‘Startup to Grown Up': Interview with MailChimp’s Founderhttp://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/get-business-startup-grown-interview-mailchimps-founder-01279644
http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/get-business-startup-grown-interview-mailchimps-founder-01279644#commentsThu, 23 Jul 2015 05:22:29 +0000http://www.business2community.com/?p=1279644

When you get two talented, intelligent people who see a need in the market, have a great business plan and vision there isn’t much they can’t do, especially when it comes to Ben Chestnut and Dan Kurzius; co-founders of Mailchimp.

Mailchimp has been a leading email marketing service for close to 14 years, with 8 million small business customers, with an email send rate of 15 billion per month. After deciding to build an e-greeting site which wasn’t delivering results, they moved into web design. After listening to what their customers wanted (software with the ability to send emails with graphics that are trackable) they built Mailchimp.

Whilst the beginning of their entrepreneurial journey proved unsuccessful in the greeting card world, they used their experience and knowledge to build something even greater.

Firstly, Mailchimp have got their branding spot on. Playing on the words “mailchimp” they used a monkey as their logo, which visually talks to you throughout your email marketing process. Mailchimp’s features include creating email lists, setting up autoresponders, creating email templates, hyperlinking images and text, tracking results to see who has clicked on each email and being able to combine lists and see who is the most receptive to your email marketing.

Mailchimp provides the same CRM system as Salesforce however, as a small business it is easier to use, and cost free. You can have up to 2,000 subscribers and send over 12,000 emails completely free of charge. If that isn’t enough to convince you to use Mailchimp, see an interview below to help you take your business from startup to grown up.

Q: Knowing what you know now, what would you have done differently when you were first starting out?

I remember feeling insecure and lost a lot in our startup years. I was constantly studying and reading business books and chasing after the right answers for everything, so I wouldn’t look so clueless in front of my team. Instead of looking for the right answers to tell, I wish I had spent more time seeking out the right questions to ask. Specifically, I wish I would’ve approached everything this way – “at the current stage our business is in right now, what should our priorities be?” It’s one thing to know what you should do; it’s another thing to know when you should do it. Fortunately, I’ve always had good people on my team to nudge me in the right direction.

Q: What do you think would have happened had you known this back then?

Frankly, I would’ve been less of an asshole. Can you print that?

Q: How do you think young entrepreneurs might benefit from this lesson?

Eventually, if you succeed in building something truly unique and successful, and if you hang around and keep it going, you’ll cross over from startup to grown up. Your leadership style will need to change from quarterbacking employees to coaching new leaders to take your company to the next level. That starts with learning how to listen, and that starts with asking more than telling.

Q: What are you glad you didn’t know then that you know now?

At the end of the day, all businesses are composed of the same basic building blocks. It’s how you stack them that makes you unique. That knowledge has been incredibly helpful and liberating for me now, but in the early years, I’m afraid that knowing this would’ve taken away a lot of the fun and experimentation.

Q: What is your best advice for aspiring entrepreneurs?

As it grows, your business will go through several stages and each stage requires a different kind of leader. When you feel like you’ve mastered the stage you’re in and can finally feel comfortable with yourself and proud of your capabilities, you’re already falling behind. Time to move to the next stage!

It’s always refreshing to hear from the likes of Ben, who believed in helping small businesses grow their business, using the right type of email marketing software. To read more about Mailchimp, purchase a copy of my book Think #Digital First.

Official campaign committee fundraising totals for the second quarter have been released and a clear frontrunner has emerged.* As the graphic below shows, Jeb Bush has raised nearly twice as much cash as the next candidate, Hillary Clinton, mostly through his super PAC.

But here’s the catch: not all money is equal. Dollars from small donors ($200 or less) can actually be a sign of a healthier campaign than dollars from super PACs or large donors. For example, a study found that small donations played a critical role in both of Obama’s successful campaigns.

Yes, the total amount raised is a hugely important number. But also important—and often overlooked—is the actual number of people who donate. Small donors are more likely to contribute throughout the campaign and can be more easily mobilized to get out the vote. The ratio of small donors to large donors can indicate the breadth and depth of a political campaign.

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, InsideGov broke down the types of contributions to each candidate’s campaign committee. As the graphic shows, Bernie Sanders has the highest ratio of small donor supporters (76%) while Jeb Bush has the lowest (3%). Note that only 17% of Hillary Clinton’s campaign contributions came from small donors, surprising given the campaign’s emphasis on being a grassroots organization.

Campaign finance is an increasingly pressing issue in the U.S. According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the number one issue concerning voters in the 2016 election is that “wealthy individuals and corporations will have too much influence over who wins.”

It’s no surprise then that candidates are downplaying their reliance on super PACs and large individual donors. And while totals raised from small donors are significant in some campaigns, the numbers are still dwarfed by super PACs and large donors.

*Presidential candidates are required to file their campaign earnings with the FEC every quarter. The current FEC numbers, which were released July 15th, cover the period from April 1 through June 30th. Candidates like Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Jim Webb, who entered the race after June 30th, are not included. Super PAC totals are due on July 31st. Although most PACs have chosen to disclose with their candidates, some have yet to do so.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/these-two-graphs-show-which-2016-u-s-presidential-candidates-are-really-winning-the-money-race-01283267/feed02016 Crystal Ball: One of These Five People Will Be The Next U.S. Presidenthttp://www.business2community.com/government-politics/2016-crystal-ball-one-of-these-five-people-will-be-the-next-u-s-president-01282104
http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/2016-crystal-ball-one-of-these-five-people-will-be-the-next-u-s-president-01282104#commentsWed, 22 Jul 2015 00:41:52 +0000http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/stories/5166/best-chance-presidency-clinton-bush-rubio

With 21 candidates officially running for president—and 16 from the GOP alone—2016 promises to be one of the most crowded fields in history.

Take a closer look at the polls, election fundamentals and betting markets, however, and there are really only five viable candidates who can ultimately win the presidency. Let’s break down the true contenders, complete with the biggest hurdle and most distracting red herring for each.

Hillary Clinton – The Default Democrat

If you want to question Hillary’s viability, you’ll probably make one of two arguments. The first is that Democrats will rally behind a Hillary alternative, like Bernie Sanders. The second is that Clinton will cruise to the party nomination but lose in the general election.

Of the two anti-Hillary arguments, the first doesn’t hold much water. Yes, Clinton lost to a surging Barack Obama after looking unbeatable in 2007. But her numbers in this cycle are much more dominant than last time. Even after a recent Sanders bump, Clinton maintains a 40-point lead in the polls (55% for Clinton, 15% for Sanders). In July 2007, she led Obama by only a quarter of that margin (35% to 25%). Combine that with Clinton’s gigantic lead in endorsements, and Hillary is all but guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination.

Turn to the general election, however, and things get murkier. While the Democratic Party would like to believe that the country has officially moved to the left, history and economics suggest the presidency is a coin flip. Yes, the nation has moved quickly on same-sex marriage. But even if human rights issues dominate social media profiles, economic conditions—like employment, wages and taxes—tend to win out in the voting booth. Here, the country is still split.

Finally, consider that the same party has only won three straight presidential elections once since World War II (George H.W. Bush after Ronald Reagan’s two terms). Hillary’s path to the White House is anything but guaranteed.

Biggest Hurdle: Voter Fatigue

Do Americans really want a third straight Democratic term?

Red Herring: Bernie Sanders

He’ll provide a left-minded foil for the debates, but no more.

Jeb Bush – The Moderate

The slight favorite among GOP candidates, Jeb Bush’s last name is both the best and worst thing about his candidacy. On the positive side, he’ll win some support simply because people recognize his name. Political junkies might know their Walkers, Carsons and Fiorinas, but the average American would be lucky to remember anyone besides Clinton and Bush.

On the flip side, however, Jeb’s father and brother have middling reputations at best. In the public’s mind, George H.W. remains a footnote after the Reagan glory years, while George W. is widely considered a mediocre president, if not worse. Combine Americans’ general distaste for nepotism with their constant desire for change, and Jeb has a prickly path ahead.

The best news for Jeb is that he’s the most moderate of the leading candidates. If he can survive the primaries, he’ll be a compelling choice for the general election. Convincing GOP primary voters to skip more conservative candidates won’t be a picnic, but with growing support from the Republican establishment, Bush has a great shot to muscle his way past his right-leaning competition. After all, it’s the same formula John McCain and Mitt Romney successfully applied in their primaries.

Scott Walker: The Serious Conservative

The governor of Wisconsin has all the experience and accomplishments conservatives tend to love: over two decades of government service, executive leadership in a swing state and a record of fighting unions, both legislatively and judicially.

If the GOP decides to double down on conservatism, Walker is the safe, obvious pick. While Walker’s rivals were clowning around in Congress, the Governor was getting things done in Wisconsin. He’s the rare candidate who brings three parts steak for every one part sizzle.

That said, Walker’s lack of sizzle could ultimately be his downfall. After selecting two somewhat boring candidates—McCain and Romney—to face the charismatic Obama, GOP voters might worry that Walker’s muted, no-nonsense style could fizzle in the general election. Republicans want an executive with conservative credentials, but they’d rather be fired up than put to sleep.

Biggest Hurdle: Lack of charisma

Unless Walker can fire up supporters, his record may go unnoticed.

Red Herring: Far-right commentary

In wake of the same-sex marriage ruling, Walker was among the more critical voices, a position that grates with America’s popular opinion. But Walker’s levelheaded political instincts should prevent him from Trump levels of absurdity, even if the occasional comment raises eyebrows.

Marco Rubio: The Rising Star

Another strong conservative, Marco Rubio is the flashiest, most inspirational figure in the 2016 field. The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio has built a political career from scratch. Today, he is one of just three Latinos in the U.S. Senate.

Between his Cuban ancestry, service in a swing state, and loose ties with the Tea Party, Rubio can appeal to multiple key voting blocs: Hispanics, Floridians and Evangelicals. He’s also arguably the best of the five candidates on this list when it comes to stump speeches and storytelling.

Unfortunately, his wide appeal might be a little too wide. While Jeb can play to the establishment and Walker to the true conservatives, Rubio will need to walk a careful line between Tea Partiers, moderates and minorities. Should he take a hard line on immigration? Should he play up his swing state appeal? Each decision will require Rubio to alienate one or more of his potential bases, and you can bet his opponents will make him pick.

Biggest Hurdle: Defining his base

Rubio has broad appeal, but when pressed, which groups will he side with?

Red Herring: Inexperience

Having only served in the U.S. Senate for four years, some might label Rubio as inexperienced on the national level. Rubio will counter with his 11 years in the Florida House of Representatives, which should be more than enough to quell these concerns.

Rand Paul: The Sleeping Spoiler

Let’s be clear: Rand Paul is a long shot. His polling so far has been disappointing, and his campaign narrative has been muddy: is he a conservative or a libertarian?

Still, the reason you see Paul here—and not Christie, Cruz or Carson—is because Paul is unique. Unlike his GOP opponents, the Kentucky senator appeals to libertarians and young people, small but vocal groups who are increasingly shaping the country’s political discourse.

A simple combination of events could bring Paul from the fringe to the forefront: for instance, an economic regression paired with a spate of American casualties overseas. Voters could quickly embrace conservative economic principles while simultaneously favoring a hands-off international policy, a combination that would point directly—and almost exclusively—to Paul.

Unfortunately for Paul, he seems to be overly hedging his bets. He has moved to the right on many issues, including same-sex marriage, making him a less popular choice among young people. He’s likely trying to build up his conservative bonafides for the GOP primary, but he risks losing his unique, libertarian brand.

Biggest Hurdle: Uniting conservatives and libertarians

Rand would love to bring conservatives and libertarians together, but if he’s not careful, he’ll wind up alienating both.

Red Herring: Baggage from his dad

Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, is famous for his wild plans, like abolishing the Federal Reserve. In comparison, Rand has been far more modest with his proposals. In fact, Rand likely risks overcorrecting, rather than following his father too closely.

In a not so nice move, Donald Trump gave out South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s number. Trump did so following Graham’s comment that he was “the world’s biggest jackass” for questioning Arizona Sen. John McCain’s “war hero” status. Lesson learned. Don’t insult the Donald you will have your number released quicker than the hackers behind the Ashley Madison threats.

Trump told the crowd that Graham once called “begging” him to put in a good word with “Fox & Friends,” the Fox News morning show on which the billionaire businessman and “Celebrity Apprentice” host was a frequent guest.

“Maybe it’s an old number,” Trump told his supporters. “I don’t know, give it a shot.”

These antics come as Trump surged into the lead for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, with almost twice the support of his closest rival, just as he ignited a new controversy after making disparaging remarks about Sen. John McCain’s Vietnam War service, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Trump said McCain was “not a war hero.”

“He is a war hero because he was captured,” Trump added. “I like people that weren’t captured, OK? I hate to tell you. He is a war hero because he was captured. OK, you can have — I believe perhaps he is a war hero.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush broke from his prepared remarks of a policy speech Monday to declare that McCain is a “real hero,” as Donald Trump insists that he owes no apology to McCain for questioning the Arizona senator’s military heroism.

Responding for the first time himself, McCain said Monday morning that he didn’t feel Trump owed him an apology, suggesting instead the billionaire real estate developer apologize to American veterans, according to CNN.

“… I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving our country,” McCain told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”.

Christian Ferry, Mr. Graham’s campaign manager, said that Mr. Trump “continues to show hourly that he is ill-prepared to be commander in chief.” Throughout his speech, Mr. Trump denounced Mr. Graham and former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, another Republican contender who has been critical of Mr. Trump. “I know crazies. I know crazies,” Mr. Trump said, the implication being that his followers did not meet the definition of the term.

What do you think of the latest antics by Trump? Is this just one big circus act by him? Sound off below.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/donald-trump-gives-out-lindsey-grahams-number-for-defending-john-mccain-over-war-hero-quote-01282352/feed0Make Meetings Matter: An Interview with Paul Axtellhttp://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/make-meetings-matter-an-interview-with-paul-axtell-01281596
http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/make-meetings-matter-an-interview-with-paul-axtell-01281596#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 20:13:43 +0000http://www.personalbrandingblog.com/?p=56910What is the most dreaded part of your work day? For many, it’s the seemingly endless stream of meetings to talk about other meetings that we have to set up. In the workplace, often times nothing gets done as a result of this bottleneck, which can stall progress for an organization and a career. Fortunately, management expert Paul Axtell believes it’s time to make meetings matter again. In his book, Meetings Matter: 8 Powerful Strategies for Remarkable Conversations, he asserts that meetings are the most powerful tool we have to get things done and offers actionable advice to realize their potential. I sat down with Paul and discussed his perspective and how people can begin to get the most out of their daily meetings.

What gave you the inspiration to write this book?

People are concerned with the amount of time they spend in meetings – and the lack of accomplishment that occurs – for good reason. In most organizations, meetings are ineffective and time consuming.
I wrote this book to show that this doesn’t have to be the case. In fact, I would argue it’s not the meetings themselves, but the way they are run and the how people chose to participate in them.

Why have meetings gotten such a bad reputation?

The reputation of meetings is a perspective that we have drifted into over time, unfortunately. If you pay attention, you’ll hear people expressing, almost without realizing it, a series of comments about meetings that create a disempowering perspective overall:

“We have too many meetings, and they are booked back-to-back.”

“We usually don’t get through the agenda, and the meetings still run too long!”

“We end up talking about the same things every week.”

“If I can find a way to avoid a meeting, I don’t attend.”

As a result, the predominant mindset about meetings is negative, and that colors how people prepare and participate. The mind tends naturally to focus on the negative – what’s wrong, what’s not working – and look for more evidence to support that assessment. The way forward begins by choosing a more positive perspective: first, meetings do matter – they are high-leverage events at the heart of effective organizations. Second, choose ownership for each meeting you attend.

Why are meetings so important to productivity?

Meetings are at the heart of every effective organization and, if done correctly, are an opportunity to clarify issues, set direction, sharpen focus, create alignment, and move objectives forward.

What is one thing leaders can change to make their meetings more meaningful?

In my experience, most managers and supervisors don’t have the skills they need to make it a successful event – we simply have not made meetings a required competency.

In its most basic form, a meeting is essentially a series of conversations. To maximize its impact, leaders need to produce the intended outcomes— to talk about the right things and make progress on every topic. In addition, it’s important to manage the participation levels such that the quality of the conversation is top-notch and people leave engaged and aligned.

Here’s a very straightforward roadmap to actively design the conversation:

Set-up each conversation so everyone knows the intended outcomes and how to participate.

Manage the conversation deliberately so that the discussion stays on track and everyone is engaged.

Close the conversation to ensure alignment, clarity on next steps, and awareness for the value created.

Bottom line: managers are the only ones that can improve the reputation of the meeting. A little effort can go a long way.

Anything else you would like to add?

It’s possible to be five times more productive, work less hours, and be less stressed—but not if you don’t master meetings.

Fewer meetings would be nice but less time in meetings is what matters most.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/make-meetings-matter-an-interview-with-paul-axtell-01281596/feed0Apple Offers One Month Free iCloud Service To Customers In Greecehttp://www.business2community.com/world-news/apple-offers-one-month-free-icloud-service-to-customers-in-greece-01281653
http://www.business2community.com/world-news/apple-offers-one-month-free-icloud-service-to-customers-in-greece-01281653#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 18:03:28 +0000https://www.businessvibes.com/blog/Apple-offers-One-Month-Free-iCloud-Service-Customers-GreeceApple has decided to send a little help to its Greek customers after the country’s notorious financial crisis recently. It has been confirmed the American tech giant will not charge iCloud users in Greece for their paid storage plans up to 30 days after the normal renewal date, effectively giving iCloud users in Greece a free month of storage service, reported by Greek site iPhoneHellas.

As one of the responses to country’s financial crisis, new regulations of capital control were instituted by Greek government few weeks ago, which limited cash withdrawals only up to 60 euros per day, and suspended all the international payment by using credit cards or services like PayPal in Greece. Since then, costumers in Greece have been unable to use most of paid internet services, such as iCloud, iTunes and those most popular apps in app store.

The capital controls have left many costumers worrying about their iCloud data as they wouldn’t be able to pay for their subscriptions alive. Now Apple has ensured that user data remains intact during Greece’s financial crisis.

An email sent by Apple to its users in Greece stated that iCloud service would be downgraded to the standard 5GB the subscription can’t be renewed. However, that if the payment is still declined after the 30-day grace period, users will need to reduce the amount of iCloud storage they use and look for alternative services.

The full email Apple is sending to iCloud users in Greece is below:

Dear iCloud customer,

To prevent interruption in your iCloud service during the current fiscal crisis, and to make sure you have access to your content, we’ve extended your iCloud storage plan for an extra 30 days at no additional cost.

We won’t attempt to charge you for your plan until 30 days after your original renewal date. If we are unable to renew your plan, you may need to reduce the amount of iCloud storage you use.

The 2016 election is over a year away, but campaign season is in full swing.

In fact, the 2016 candidates have already raised more than $350 million combined. In comparison, the two political parties in the U.K. raised less than $13 million over their entire 2015 election.

The staggering U.S. campaign fundraising totals come from three primary sources: campaign committees, super PACs, and other committees (including nonprofits like 527 groups).

Super PAC funds, which are increasingly the most important source of money, cannot be donated directly to the candidates, and are used mostly for political advertising. The individual campaign committees are the funds raised directly by the candidate, largely through individual contributions.

So, how do the 2016 candidates stack up to each other? Using data from the Federal Election Commission, InsideGov ranked the presidential candidates by the amount of money they’ve raised. While some candidates have struggled in the money race, others are flush with cash.

Notes:

*Presidential candidates are required to file their campaign earnings with the FEC every quarter. The current FEC numbers, which were released July 15th, cover the period from April 1 through June 30th. Candidates like Chris Christie, Scott Walker and Jim Webb, who entered the race after June 30th, are not included.

**Super PACs are a type of political action committee may raise and spend unlimited sums of money to advocate for or against political candidates. However, super PACs are not allowed to donate directly to political candidates.

***Super PAC totals are due on July 31st. Although most PACs have chosen to disclose with their candidates, some have yet to do so.

George Pataki

The former governor of New York has raised a modest amount so far. Individual donors made most of this number, with 93% coming from large individual contributions (greater than $200). Pataki’s super PACs have not disclosed their fundraising totals, so his total amount might jump at the end of the month.

Lincoln Chafee

Chafee’s campaign has yet to gain momentum in the primaries. The former governor of Rhode Island has raised over $390K, but 93% of that number came from a loan he took out for himself. No super PACs have released fundraising totals for Chafee’s campaign.

Rick Santorum

The former Pennsylvania senator raised over $22 million during his presidential bid in 2012. Will he be able to match that number in 2016? So far, Santorum has a ways to go, having raised a little over $600K. The fact that his super PACs are waiting disclose their totals isn’t encouraging.

Donald Trump

Nearly 95% of Trump’s campaign contributions has come from loans, with individual contributions making up most of the remaining 5%. While Trump sits at number 14 now, he still has a $10 billion fortune to tap into if need be.

Martin O’Malley

Any Democratic challenger to Hillary Clinton better be prepared for an uphill battle. O’Malley’s campaign is roughly on par with the average for campaign committees ($2.46 million). Moreover, O’Malley’s super PAC has yet to disclose its totals.

Lindsey Graham

Graham’s campaign committee has gotten off to a solid start. Individual contributions made up around 58% of the total and transfers from affiliated committees made up 41%. Graham will surely rank higher when his super PACs release their numbers.

Carly Fiorina

Fiorina’s official campaign committee lags behind most others in terms of fundraising, having raised a little over $1.7 million. But her super PAC is picking up the slack, with $3.4 million in fundraising.

Rand Paul

Senator Paul prides himself on being a grassroots leader, and his fundraising breakdown reflects his campaign style. So far, Paul’s campaign has raised nearly $7 million without the help of his super PACs. Even more impressive is that 46% of his campaign contributions came from small individual donors.

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee was one of the first candidates to announce his 2016 presidential bid, but his campaign committee has struggled to attract significant donors, raising just $2 million. Huckabee’s super PACs raised triple that amount.

Bobby Jindal

Jindal’s official campaign committee has raised less than $600K, putting it behind most of its GOP rivals. But the combination of super PAC funds and outside committees have pushed his total amount above $9 million.

Ben Carson

As one of the first candidates to enter the race, Carson has had more time to fundraise than most of his competitors. His campaign’s contributions mostly come from small individual donors (68%) and large individual donors (32%). Carson’s two super PACs have not released their totals yet.

Bernie Sanders

The Democratic senator from Vermont is adamantly opposed to super PACs, arguing that billionaires should not be able to “buy politicians.” Even without super PAC help, Sanders is off to a strong start. His official campaign committee has raised over $15 million so far, more than any other 2016 candidate except Hillary Clinton.

Rick Perry

After an embarrassing gaffe during the 2012 Republican primaries, Perry’s image took a big hit. Perry’s official campaign is still struggling to connect with people, raising a paltry $1.1 million. But the former Texas governor received a major $16.8 million boost from super PACs.

Marco Rubio

Rubio’s total fundraising is divided between three main sources: the official campaign committee ($12.1 million), a super PAC ($16.1 million) and a nonprofit named the Conservative Solutions Project ($15.8 million). Overall, it’s a promising start for the young Florida senator.

Ted Cruz

As the first person on this list to announce his candidacy, Cruz has had the most time to fundraise. His campaign committee has raised $14.2 million so far, but where he really stands out is in super PAC funding. Cruz’s super PACs have raised $38 million, the second highest of any candidate.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton is the clear Democratic frontrunner in terms of fundraising. Her campaign committee has raised an impressive $47 million, more than any other presidential candidate, and her super PACs have brought in an extra $15.6 million. Interestingly, 82% of Clinton’s total campaign contributions have come from large individual donations.

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush blew his GOP rivals out of the water with a stunning $104 million fundraising effort from his super PAC, Right to Rise USA. In fact, Bush delayed his official entry into the race so that he could fundraise directly for his super PAC.

Since his formal announcement of candidacy, Bush’s campaign committee has raised nearly $11.5 million, though this amount is largely skewed toward large individual contributors (93%).

Total Fundraising Comparison

The graphic below shows each candidate’s total fundraising numbers broken down by source. Jeb Bush leads the pack by a wide margin.

Daily Averages Comparison

Donor Breakdown Comparison

Whether a campaign is backed by small or large donors is an important indicator of how broad its support base is. Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson have the highest percentage of small donors, while Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley have the highest percentage of large donors.

]]>http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/2016-u-s-presidential-candidates-who-have-raised-the-most-money-charts-01280888/feed0Does Your Customer Service Disappoint? Steve Curtin Shares Secrets to Delighthttp://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/customer-service-disappoint-steve-curtin-shares-secrets-delight-01277122
http://www.business2community.com/expert-interviews/customer-service-disappoint-steve-curtin-shares-secrets-delight-01277122#commentsTue, 21 Jul 2015 11:35:24 +0000http://www.business2community.com/?p=1277122According to the latest data from [24]7’s Customer Engagement Index 80% of customers would stop doing business with a company within one week of receiving poor service. Half say they’d leave the same day. Is your customer service pushing customers to the competition? According to customer service author and speaker Steve Curtin it probably is.

The good news: there’s hope for improvement! Last week I had the chance to talk with Steve about where most contact centers are missing the mark, and where they can recover. Check out the conversation and learn how to position your contact center on the path to customer delight.

Q: In your book Delight Your Customers you mention that 80% of companies claim to provide superior service, while only 8% of customers agree. Where are companies missing the mark?

Steve: Too many companies focus exclusively on teaching their employees WHAT to do (imparting job knowledge) and HOW to do it (developing job skills), but neglect any reference to WHY they are doing it (conveying job purpose; employees’ highest priority at work). As a result, most companies produce competent employees who, while capable of consistently executing the mandatory job functions for which they are paid, are aloof: unaware of organizational purpose, uninformed about business priorities and objectives, and uninspired at work.

Q: Recent ICMI research revealed that a majority of contact center leaders are knowingly preventing their agents from providing the best customer experience possible. Why do you think this is the case?

Steve: There is a halo effect that suggests company leaders are somehow enlightened beyond the degree to which their frontline employees are enlightened. By “enlightened” I’m referring to having a shared understanding of their work’s meaning and purpose. Just because someone is a manager doesn’t mean that he/she is aware of organizational purpose. If managers are themselves ignorant about purpose, then how can they be expected to inspire their staff to achieve their organization’s highest priority? Disclaimer: Having said that, I disagree that employees are justified in delivering a subpar customer experience on the basis that their manager is unsupportive. Excellence doesn’t require permission. You are not given initiative by your manager; you take it yourself.

Q: As a customer, what’s the worst service experience you’ve had recently?

Steve: I recently phoned my local supermarket upon discovering that $13.30 worth of sliced roast beef from the deli that appeared on my receipt did not make it into my shopping bags. After conveying this to the employee who answered my call, he said, “Could you call back at a more convenient time?” Seriously?

Q: What’s the best experience?

Steve: Just today, I had a two-man installation crew from Ferguson Enterprises install three appliances: a gas cooktop, a retractable downdraft, and a double oven. They showed up on time, completed an expert installation within 2.5 hours, left no mess behind, and were courteous and professional. Now, you might be thinking: “Huh? Is that it? It sounds like they just did their jobs really well. Where’s the outrageous customer service gesture?” There was none. There didn’t have to be. My definition of customer service is this: a voluntary act that demonstrates a genuine desire to satisfy, if not delight, a customer. (Notice how it doesn’t read: “…genuine desire to delight a customer”?) There is a popular misconception that breathless, over-the-top customer service is required in order to achieve the reputation of a heralded customer service provider like Zappos or Nordstrom. The reality is that this type of service model leads to employee (and quite possibly, customer) fatigue and is, over time, unsustainable. Customers do not expect employees to go out of their way during every interaction. Most customers simply want to receive the product or service ordered at the time and price expected.

Q: Many people now argue that delighting customers isn’t as important as making their experience easy. What do you think?

Steve: The people who make this argument assume that it has to be zero-sum: either delight customers or reduce customer effort. As most reasonable customer experience professionals understand, it doesn’t have to be one or the other; it can be both. In fact, as a customer myself, I’m “delighted” whenever a service provider reduces the effort I have to expend during a transaction. And I’m sure I’m not alone.

Q: How much do you think customer expectations have changed in the last 10 years?

Steve: Expectations are based, in part, on our experiences. Before the proliferation of social media and review websites over the past decade, customers’ expectations were based on their personal experiences with a product or service or, perhaps, a review they happened across in the media or heard from a family member, friend, or colleague. Today, customers don’t have to happen across a review or bump into another person with first-hand experience; they can actively search for online reviews and form expectations based on others’ experiences. The result is that today’s customers are better informed and adjust their expectations accordingly.

Q: Customer Service Week will be here before we know it. What’s one cool, low-cost way teams can celebrate this year?

Steve: Here’s my opinion about Customer Service Week: some companies will spend more time and effort staging events in preparation for Customer Service Week than they will spend celebrating customers and delivering exceptional customer service during the remaining 51 weeks of the year. Customer service is not a campaign; it’s a commitment. What’s one cool, low-cost way teams can celebrate this year? How about committing to celebrate the customer 52 weeks out of the year by consistently expressing genuine interest in serving them? It costs nothing to smile, make eye contact, add energy to your voice, display a sense of urgency, pay attention to detail, anticipate needs, follow-up, etc.

Political analysts are predicting that 2016 could be one of the tightest presidential races in U.S. history—assuming that Republicans choose the right candidate. It’s rare for one political party to win more than three terms in a row, but the GOP is more divided than ever. If 2016 is anything like the 2012 presidential election, it will certainly be a close fight.

With that in mind, InsideGov ranked the 17 closest presidential elections in U.S. history. Using data from the American Presidency Project, we factored in both the popular vote and the electoral vote when ranking the elections.

Some of these presidential candidates lost the popular vote, but edged by in the electoral college. One even lost both votes. Regardless of how they won, these are the presidents who barely squeaked by.

*Note: Elections up to 1824 are excluded due to a lack of popular vote data.

1892 Election

Grover Cleveland ran for president three times. All three of his elections make this list. In the 1892 election, Cleveland returned to the presidency after a four-year absence, defeating the man who had previously ousted him from the White House.

1844 Election

Polk was one of the first true dark horse candidates in U.S. history. He barely edged by in the popular vote where he had a slim 1.45% margin over rival Henry Clay. But his 32% lead in the electoral college carried him to the White House.

2012 Election

Right up until the election, President Obama and Mitt Romney were neck-and-neck. President Obama won with a narrow 3.86% margin in the popular vote, but had a more solid lead with electoral votes. Republicans are more hopeful heading into 2016.

1948 Election

Truman’s victory over Thomas Dewey is one of the greatest upsets in U.S. history. In fact, the Chicago Daily Tribune infamously ran the front-page headline: “Dewey Defeats Truman.” But the incumbent President Truman galvanized voters with a last-minute campaign blitz.

1896 Election

The 1896 election boiled down to economic issues. The Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan campaigned as a populist and champion of the poor. Republican William McKinley formed a coalition with businessmen and wealthy farmers.

McKinley’s victory set the stage for nearly three decades of Republican domination, with the GOP controlling the White House for 28 of the next 36 years.

1968 Election

Incumbent Richard Nixon barely won the popular vote—he led rival Hubert Humphrey with a little over 500,000 votes (0.7% margin). The election is also notable for the strong performance of third-party candidate George Wallace, who campaigned on a platform of racial segregation and won several southern states.

1848 Election

Zachary Taylor and opponent Lewis Cass both carried 15 states in the election. But Taylor’s states had more electoral votes, giving him the slight edge in this close race. Although he failed to win any electoral votes, former president Martin Van Buren won 10% of the popular vote as a third party candidate.

1880 Election

Garfield won the popular vote by less than 2,000 votes, the narrowest margin at the time. However, the former Civil War general secured the votes of the northern states, giving him a more solid electoral advantage.

1960 Election

As the incumbent vice president, Richard Nixon was confident in his ability to triumph over the the young senator from Massachusetts. He was wrong. Kennedy used his personal charisma and campaigning skills to secure the election, although his .17% margin in the popular vote is one of the lowest in U.S. history.

1888 Election

Harrison is the first president on this list to actually lose the popular vote. The incumbent president at the time, Grover Cleveland, won nearly 100,000 more votes than his opponent but ultimately lost in the electoral college. Cleveland would get his revenge four years later.

1976 Election

A former peanut farmer from Georgia, Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider when he ran for president against Gerald Ford. That may have worked in his favor, as the American public was wary of corrupt politicians in the wake of Richard Nixon.

1884 Election

Grover Cleveland never had an easy election. His first—and closest—run for president was almost a loss. Cleveland won New York state’s 36 electoral votes by just 1,047 votes. Those votes likely secured him the election.

2004 Election

President Bush won the popular vote with a 2.46% margin, the lowest margin of victory ever for a re-elected incumbent president. Although he lost out on the presidency, John Kerry would still serve in the executive office as President Obama’s secretary of state.

1916 Election

World War I was in full swing when Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection in 1916. President Wilson narrowly edged by in the election with a 3.12% margin in the popular vote and a 4.34% margin in the electoral.

2000 Election

The contentious 2000 election came down to one state: Florida. After polls closed on election day, the major television news networks announced that Al Gore had won Florida. However, as the results trickled in, Bush pulled ahead in the state and ended with a 900-vote lead.

When the Supreme Court overruled Gore’s demand for a Florida recount in Bush v. Gore (2000), the election officially ended, over a month later. Overall, Bush lost the popular election by more than 500,000 votes but won the electoral race by five votes.

1824 Election

John Quincy Adams is the only president to have lost both the popular vote (by 10.4%) and the electoral vote (by 16.2%). So how did he end up in the White House instead of rival Andrew Jackson?

Since no candidate managed to win a majority of the electoral votes, the election was decided in the House of Representatives, where Speaker Henry Clay used his influence to secure Adams the win. Jackson didn’t take the news well, accusing Adams and Clay of striking a “corrupt bargain.” He would triumph over Adams in the next election.

Overall Comparison

Looking at election results over time, we see that the presidential elections of the last two decades having generally been some of the closest in U.S. history. In fact, the most recent period of elections is most similar to the 1870s-80s period, when candidates consistently failed to win a majority of the popular vote. Are our presidential candidates getting weaker? Or is the U.S. just more divided than ever?